Subject: [Dime] Review of rfc3588-bis-11 - Part 2

From: Mark Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:38:09 -0400

Here is my review of sections 6 onwards. All comments are editorial except for the question about the DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED description.

---

6.1.8.  Redirecting requests

s/againt/against/

---

6.6.  Destination-Realm AVP

Second paragraph contains ambiguous "mandatory" usage:

   Request messages whose ABNF does not list the Destination-Realm AVP
   as a required AVP are inherently non-routable messages.

---

6.7.4.  Proxy-State AVP

Suggested rewording:

   The Proxy-State AVP (AVP Code 33) is of type OctetString, and
   contains local state information which MUST be treated as opaque data
   by hosts other than the one identified by the Proxy-Host AVP.

---

6.11.  Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP

s/diameter/Diameter/

---

7.  Error Handling

Eighth paragraph contains ambiguous "mandatory" usage:

      A command is received with an AVP that is omitted, yet is
      required according to the command's ABNF.

---

7.1.3.  Protocol Errors

s/Sec 3/Section 3/

---

7.1.5.  Permanent Failures

   DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED 5019

The description reads that this MUST be reported when a node receives an experimental command that is does not understand. Shouldn't that be any command that it does not understand?

---

8.20.  Class AVP

s/used to by/used by/

---

13.1.  TLS Usage

s/one ore more/one or more/
s/co-related/correlated/

---

Regards
Mark
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:07:36 -0400

Hi Mark,

.. really appreciate the review. The editorials are good. Comment inline 
for the others.

>    as a required AVP are inherently non-routable messages.

How about chaging the text to:

"An ABNF for a request message that includes the Destination-Realm
AVP SHOULD list the Destination-Realm AVP as a required AVP (an AVP
indicated as {AVP}) otherwise the message is inherently a
non-routable messages."
>    by hosts other than the one identified by the Proxy-Host AVP.

How about chaging the text to:

"The Proxy-State AVP (AVP Code 33) is of type OctetString. It
generally contains information related to the local state of a
Diameter node. It MUST be treated as opaque data."

>       required according to the command's ABNF.

We can change to:

"A command is received that is missing AVP(s) that are defined as
required in the commands ABNF; example are AVPs indicated as {AVP}."

> The description reads that this MUST be reported when a node receives an experimental command that is does not understand. Shouldn't that be any command that it does not understand?

Yes. It should be for any command it does not support. The entire 
description should change to:

"The Request contained a Command-Code that the receiver did not 
recognize or doest not support."

best regards,
victor